I think a very basic difficulty which we Chalcedonians of the Greek tradition face is that there is a peculiar theological alliance between the Latin (including Protestant) and non-Chalcedonian scholars in regard to Chalcedon. For the same reasons that the Westerners can accept Chalcedon, the non-Chalcedonians reject Chalcedon. Both sides try to prove that Chalcedon rejected the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril and accepted Leo' s Tome either as a correction (so say the Westerners) or as a distortion (so say the non-Chalcedonians) of Cyrillian Christology. Contrary to both these approaches (which do not represent the central tradition of Chalcedon) the Chalcedonian Greeks read the documents of Chalcedon in the light of Ephesus I (431) and Constantinople II (553). The usual Latin and non-Chalcedonian picture whereby our Illyrian, Thracian, Asian, Pontian, Cappadocian, Palestinian, and Egyptian Fathers are presented as capitulating before a few Latin and Antiocliene [sic] bishops is caricature and not history.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Greeting in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

This is not entirely accurate, because while technically both Latins and Orientals have issues with Chalcedon Council, the Latins are clearly Chalcedonian in their Christology, and especially agree more often with the EO rather than the OO in Christological matters. The only unison opinions mutually held by the OO and the RC which are different from the EO is the concept of the distinction between the Essence and Energy of God in Palamas theology which I understand both the OO and RCs reject.

Aside from that, we in the OO generally think of the RCs as Chalcedon. In Ethiopian history, the RCs under the Portuguese came to Ethiopia and even temporarily succeeded in converting the Emperor Susenyos to Catholicism, and their influence sparked several indigenous Christological heresies based on the confusions causes by the introduction of Chalcedonian theology to the Oriental Ethiopian Orthodox communities. It is in this 200 year process that the real, concrete differences between the RCs and the Ethiopian Orthodox (and generally OO) were outlined and elucidated. Even if the RCs and the EOs have formally split, from the Ethiopia perspective both are mutually Chalcedonian. The Ethiopians only interest in RCs was politico-economic ties with Latin Europe to counterbalance the Ottoman push into the Red Sea. In fact, the classic Unctionist and Adoptionist heresies which plagued the Early Church resurfaced almost by coincidence in Ethiopia a thousand years later sparked by the dialogue and discussion with the Catholics regarding Mary, Christology, the new Calendar, the Liturgy, the Saints, etc etc The OOs have always accused Chalcedon of Nestorianism because of our own Christological language and interpretation, and these interpretations rightfully came back after the introduction of the Catholics. Ethiopians developed on their own the same kind of heresies that others had developed based upon the same line of thinking, and the same misinterpretations of Chalcedon. We in the OO tradition particularly reject Chalcedon because we feel its language opens up the potential for these Unctionist and Adoptionist heresies in the potentiality of splitting the Nature(s) of the Incarnate Christ.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

I think a very basic difficulty which we Chalcedonians of the Greek tradition face is that there is a peculiar theological alliance between the Latin (including Protestant) and non-Chalcedonian scholars in regard to Chalcedon. For the same reasons that the Westerners can accept Chalcedon, the non-Chalcedonians reject Chalcedon. Both sides try to prove that Chalcedon rejected the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril and accepted Leo' s Tome either as a correction (so say the Westerners) or as a distortion (so say the non-Chalcedonians) of Cyrillian Christology. Contrary to both these approaches (which do not represent the central tradition of Chalcedon) the Chalcedonian Greeks read the documents of Chalcedon in the light of Ephesus I (431) and Constantinople II (553). The usual Latin and non-Chalcedonian picture whereby our Illyrian, Thracian, Asian, Pontian, Cappadocian, Palestinian, and Egyptian Fathers are presented as capitulating before a few Latin and Antiocliene [sic] bishops is caricature and not history.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Greeting in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

This is not entirely accurate, because while technically both Latins and Orientals have issues with Chalcedon Council, the Latins are clearly Chalcedonian in their Christology, and especially agree more often with the EO rather than the OO in Christological matters. The only unison opinions mutually held by the OO and the RC which are different from the EO is the concept of the distinction between the Essence and Energy of God in Palamas theology which I understand both the OO and RCs reject.

Aside from that, we in the OO generally think of the RCs as Chalcedon. In Ethiopian history, the RCs under the Portuguese came to Ethiopia and even temporarily succeeded in converting the Emperor Susenyos to Catholicism, and their influence sparked several indigenous Christological heresies based on the confusions causes by the introduction of Chalcedonian theology to the Oriental Ethiopian Orthodox communities. It is in this 200 year process that the real, concrete differences between the RCs and the Ethiopian Orthodox (and generally OO) were outlined and elucidated. Even if the RCs and the EOs have formally split, from the Ethiopia perspective both are mutually Chalcedonian. The Ethiopians only interest in RCs was politico-economic ties with Latin Europe to counterbalance the Ottoman push into the Red Sea. In fact, the classic Unctionist and Adoptionist heresies which plagued the Early Church resurfaced almost by coincidence in Ethiopia a thousand years later sparked by the dialogue and discussion with the Catholics regarding Mary, Christology, the new Calendar, the Liturgy, the Saints, etc etc The OOs have always accused Chalcedon of Nestorianism because of our own Christological language and interpretation, and these interpretations rightfully came back after the introduction of the Catholics. Ethiopians developed on their own the same kind of heresies that others had developed based upon the same line of thinking, and the same misinterpretations of Chalcedon. We in the OO tradition particularly reject Chalcedon because we feel its language opens up the potential for these Unctionist and Adoptionist heresies in the potentiality of splitting the Nature(s) of the Incarnate Christ.

stay blessed,habte selassie

I think you may be misunderstanding the point of the quotation. Its not saying the RCs and OOs agree. Rather, it seems to say that RCs accept Chalcedon, but just barely, so to speak, while OOs reject it, because they see it as insufficiently Cyrilian.

Fr. Romanides seems to suggest that EO theology is and always has been fundamentally Cyrilian, and the fact that the EO ended up on the same side as the crypto-Nestorian Latin West was a sort of historical accident. Or something like that seems, at least to me, to be implied.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

Not just me, many OO interpret Western Christology in this way. For the OO fathers, two natures must necessarily exist in Two hypostases, so when the EOs speak of Two Natures many of our OO Fathers then interpret this as at the least, insinuating Nestorianism.

Stay Blessed,Habte Selassie

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Not just me, many OO interpret Western Christology in this way. For the OO fathers, two natures must necessarily exist in Two hypostases, so when the EOs speak of Two Natures many of our OO Fathers then interpret this as at the least, insinuating Nestorianism.

Stay Blessed,Habte Selassie

Still missing the point.

Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.

JLatimer, I think we know that Father John Romanides had a low view of the Frankish Church.

I never quite followed his train of thought.

I think he is wrong to believe, as of course de Halleux proposed, that Chalcedon was a Cyrilline council. My view at present is that it was several different things all going on at the same time, with different actors and different agendas. But I do not believe that it was meant by the Emperor, as a major player, to be a Cyrilline council as he had invited Nestorius to attend and be reconciled to the Church. I am quite sure that Ibas did not view it as a Cyrilline council, nor Theodoret.

I think that Rome accepted Chalcedon for reasons that seemed good and consistent, just as the anti-Chalcedonians rejected it for different reasons which seemed good and consistent.

Christianity is not a simple religion, and was never meant to be. I used to belong to a group that thought theology was bad, but that just meant we had bad theology in any case.

It gets fought over because it matters, as well as because people are sinful. Here on OCnet I think it gets discussed seriously because it is a serious matter. I think the EO are Orthodox, and so do my bishops, but that is only after careful thought and investigation, because it matters.

When you say Yeshua, do you mean God the Word incarnate? or someone else?

When you say Yeshua, do you mean God the Word incarnate? or someone else?

Mar-Yehoshuah ben Yosef, who was given a symbolic sonship from YHWH at his baptism by Mar-Yohannah the scrubbing bubbler.

It's bad enough NicholasMyra that you say Jesus, which is NOT the name of God incarnate & flesh on Earth ANY credible historian will tell you that his name in his native tongue was either pronounced - 1) Yeshua2) Yehushua

and that "Jesus" came from "iesus" out of the Greek.

You are actually making fun of the name of Yeshua, the baptism of our God (I think it's your God) the son of the trinity, and denying the divinity by calling YHWH's incarnation "symbolic". I for one see that as very blasphemous.

You can hate me all you want, but your blasphemy stands as your own testimony.

But he was not talking about a sword amongst brethren that should be humble and washing each other's feet. He was talking about his message to non-Christians.

"Any kingdom divided against itself is laid waste; and any city or house divided against itself will not stand."

Ever since the beginning Christianity has been a mess of sects, this is the way it has always been. But had it not been for all of the quibbling that went on at these councils we would not have been able to preserve "the faith once and for all delivered to the Saints".

In any case, this is somewhat tangential. We were talking about Chalcedon, so let's try to get back on topic.

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

You are actually making fun of the name of Yeshua, the baptism of our God (I think it's your God) the son of the trinity, and denying the divinity by calling YHWH's incarnation "symbolic". I for one see that as very blasphemous.

You can hate me all you want, but your blasphemy stands as your own testimony.

It's a satire of the logical conclusion of your current stance, YIM.

I use the name Yeshua myself. But soon enough Yeshua will probably not be good enough for the Judaizers. Some of the Messianic Jews have already begun adding more syllables.

You are actually making fun of the name of Yeshua, the baptism of our God (I think it's your God) the son of the trinity, and denying the divinity by calling YHWH's incarnation "symbolic". I for one see that as very blasphemous.

You can hate me all you want, but your blasphemy stands as your own testimony.

It's a satire of the logical conclusion of your current stance, YIM.

I use the name Yeshua myself. But soon enough Yeshua will probably not be good enough for the Judaizers. Some of the Messianic Jews have already begun adding more syllables.

Don't explain yourself or apologize. It was highlarity. Let them writhe. Or scratch their heads.

Logged

If you have PMed me, the mods have taken my ability to PM away. Please see my email if you wish to contact me during my time of trial.

Greeting in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

This is not entirely accurate, because while technically both Latins and Orientals have issues with Chalcedon Council, the Latins are clearly Chalcedonian in their Christology, and especially agree more often with the EO rather than the OO in Christological matters. The only unison opinions mutually held by the OO and the RC which are different from the EO is the concept of the distinction between the Essence and Energy of God in Palamas theology which I understand both the OO and RCs reject.

Aside from that, we in the OO generally think of the RCs as Chalcedon. In Ethiopian history, the RCs under the Portuguese came to Ethiopia and even temporarily succeeded in converting the Emperor Susenyos to Catholicism, and their influence sparked several indigenous Christological heresies based on the confusions causes by the introduction of Chalcedonian theology to the Oriental Ethiopian Orthodox communities. It is in this 200 year process that the real, concrete differences between the RCs and the Ethiopian Orthodox (and generally OO) were outlined and elucidated. Even if the RCs and the EOs have formally split, from the Ethiopia perspective both are mutually Chalcedonian. The Ethiopians only interest in RCs was politico-economic ties with Latin Europe to counterbalance the Ottoman push into the Red Sea. In fact, the classic Unctionist and Adoptionist heresies which plagued the Early Church resurfaced almost by coincidence in Ethiopia a thousand years later sparked by the dialogue and discussion with the Catholics regarding Mary, Christology, the new Calendar, the Liturgy, the Saints, etc etc The OOs have always accused Chalcedon of Nestorianism because of our own Christological language and interpretation, and these interpretations rightfully came back after the introduction of the Catholics. Ethiopians developed on their own the same kind of heresies that others had developed based upon the same line of thinking, and the same misinterpretations of Chalcedon. We in the OO tradition particularly reject Chalcedon because we feel its language opens up the potential for these Unctionist and Adoptionist heresies in the potentiality of splitting the Nature(s) of the Incarnate Christ.

stay blessed,habte selassie

I want to comment on one thing you mentioned here. I'm not sure about RC's as they're still debating how Thomism and Palamism can be reconciled. But as far as OO's go (at least the Copts), we have a theology consonant with Palamism. While the phrases of energy and essence might not have been developed fully, we have Coptic bishops that accept this distinction as an accurate depiction of the Coptic faith. In fact, His Grace Bishop Youssef of the Southern US even quoted from St. Gregory Palamas himself, someone who is obviously not canonized as a church father in our tradition.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

When you say Yeshua, do you mean God the Word incarnate? or someone else?

Mar-Yehoshuah ben Yosef, who was given a symbolic sonship from YHWH at his baptism by Mar-Yohannah the scrubbing bubbler.

It's bad enough NicholasMyra that you say Jesus, which is NOT the name of God incarnate & flesh on Earth ANY credible historian will tell you that his name in his native tongue was either pronounced - 1) Yeshua2) Yehushua

and that "Jesus" came from "iesus" out of the Greek.

You are actually making fun of the name of Yeshua, the baptism of our God (I think it's your God) the son of the trinity, and denying the divinity by calling YHWH's incarnation "symbolic". I for one see that as very blasphemous.

You can hate me all you want, but your blasphemy stands as your own testimony.

I for one find it ironic that you are distraught about divisive arguments over the nature(s) of Christ, but when it comes to the name of Jesus/Yeshua, you find it quite worth your lifetime to divide over this particular name. What's next? The Septuagint was wrong to translate Messiah into Christ?

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

JLatimer, I think we know that Father John Romanides had a low view of the Frankish Church.

I never quite followed his train of thought.

I think he is wrong to believe, as of course de Halleux proposed, that Chalcedon was a Cyrilline council. My view at present is that it was several different things all going on at the same time, with different actors and different agendas. But I do not believe that it was meant by the Emperor, as a major player, to be a Cyrilline council as he had invited Nestorius to attend and be reconciled to the Church. I am quite sure that Ibas did not view it as a Cyrilline council, nor Theodoret.

I think that Rome accepted Chalcedon for reasons that seemed good and consistent, just as the anti-Chalcedonians rejected it for different reasons which seemed good and consistent.

Father Peter

Indeed, Chalcedon is a complicated mesh, isn't it? One says this is a Cyrillian council; another says Roman papalism; and yet another says this is a semi-Nestorian council. In reality, all three were present within the council, seemed to allow all to at least exist in a compromising manner, agreeing on the definition of Chalcedon, where once again, three interpretations of the definition come along: one believes it affirmed the Tome and Roman papal authority, one believed that despite the Tome, it's Cyrillian, and one believed that this agreed with Mopsuestian Christology (and of course, a fourth more political side to this, that stability of the empire was thought to be achieved through this). It seems perhaps for the good sake of EO's that Nestorius never made it to the council, which makes it that much easier to put their own interpretations to it as vague as all these interpretations together make the council out to be.

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

I think he is wrong to believe, as of course de Halleux proposed, that Chalcedon was a Cyrilline council.

Agree or disagree with the proposition (and obviously OO's do disagree with it), but the idea that Chalcedon was a Cyrillian council did not start with de Halleux, it started at Chalcedon itself

Quote

from the Definition of the Council of ChalcedonAnd this have we done with one unanimous consent, driving away erroneous doctrines and renewing the unerring faith of the Fathers, publishing to all men the Creed of the Three Hundred and Eighteen, and to their number adding, as their peers, the Fathers who have received the same summary of religion. Such are the One Hundred and Fifty holy Fathers who afterwards assembled in the great Constantinople and ratified the same faith. Moreover, observing the order and every form relating to the faith, which was observed by the holy synod formerly held in Ephesus, of which Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria, of holy memory, were the leaders,... on account of those who have taken in hand to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation and who shamelessly pretend that he who was born of the holy Virgin Mary was a mere man, it receives the synodical letters of the Blessed Cyril, Pastor of the Church of Alexandria, addressed to Nestorius and the Easterns, judging them suitable, for the refutation of the frenzied folly of Nestorius, and for the instruction of those who long with holy ardour for a knowledge of the saving symbol.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.

« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 08:13:41 PM by Severian »

Logged

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -The Lord Jesus Christ

"I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve!" -Bilbo Baggins, The Fellowship of the Ring

Greeting in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

This is not entirely accurate, because while technically both Latins and Orientals have issues with Chalcedon Council, the Latins are clearly Chalcedonian in their Christology, and especially agree more often with the EO rather than the OO in Christological matters. The only unison opinions mutually held by the OO and the RC which are different from the EO is the concept of the distinction between the Essence and Energy of God in Palamas theology which I understand both the OO and RCs reject.

Aside from that, we in the OO generally think of the RCs as Chalcedon. In Ethiopian history, the RCs under the Portuguese came to Ethiopia and even temporarily succeeded in converting the Emperor Susenyos to Catholicism, and their influence sparked several indigenous Christological heresies based on the confusions causes by the introduction of Chalcedonian theology to the Oriental Ethiopian Orthodox communities. It is in this 200 year process that the real, concrete differences between the RCs and the Ethiopian Orthodox (and generally OO) were outlined and elucidated. Even if the RCs and the EOs have formally split, from the Ethiopia perspective both are mutually Chalcedonian. The Ethiopians only interest in RCs was politico-economic ties with Latin Europe to counterbalance the Ottoman push into the Red Sea. In fact, the classic Unctionist and Adoptionist heresies which plagued the Early Church resurfaced almost by coincidence in Ethiopia a thousand years later sparked by the dialogue and discussion with the Catholics regarding Mary, Christology, the new Calendar, the Liturgy, the Saints, etc etc The OOs have always accused Chalcedon of Nestorianism because of our own Christological language and interpretation, and these interpretations rightfully came back after the introduction of the Catholics. Ethiopians developed on their own the same kind of heresies that others had developed based upon the same line of thinking, and the same misinterpretations of Chalcedon. We in the OO tradition particularly reject Chalcedon because we feel its language opens up the potential for these Unctionist and Adoptionist heresies in the potentiality of splitting the Nature(s) of the Incarnate Christ.

stay blessed,habte selassie

I think you may be misunderstanding the point of the quotation. Its not saying the RCs and OOs agree. Rather, it seems to say that RCs accept Chalcedon, but just barely, so to speak, while OOs reject it, because they see it as insufficiently Cyrilian.

Fr. Romanides seems to suggest that EO theology is and always has been fundamentally Cyrilian, and the fact that the EO ended up on the same side as the crypto-Nestorian Latin West was a sort of historical accident. Or something like that seems, at least to me, to be implied.

Not really.

He is making the point that the Vatican claims that the Fathers of Chalcedon adopted the Tome of Leo as their own because the Pope of Rome said so. The Acts say otherwise: the Council was not held in the West like Pope St. Leo wanted, nor was the Tome rubberstamped, as he wanted, on the basis of who wrote it. The Fathers examined the Tome and judged (not accepted, judged) it as Orthodox, but they made their own definition which, unlike the Tome, is infallible. The OO's, on the other had, judge Pope St. Leo as a crypto-Nestorian, and since they claim the Fathers of Chalcedon just rubber stamped the Tome, like the Vatican claims, making them crypto-Nestorian with Pope St. Leo as their heresiarch, they are approaching it from the same angle as the Vatican.

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

JLatimer, I think we know that Father John Romanides had a low view of the Frankish Church.

I never quite followed his train of thought.

Quite direct, Father: the Franks adopted the filioque, spread it, and then imposed it on Rome itself. They claimed to be crowned Emperor of the Romans, by the hand of the pontifex maximus at Rome by the power vested in him by the fraudulent Donation of Constantine, and claimed that the true heirs of Constantine and Emperors of the Romans were just "kings of the Greeks." And then the Franks tried to impose their views on the Empire of the Romans through the Crusades, culminating in the Frangokratia, a prelude to the Turkokratia, the sack of New Rome and the erection of a Latin Empire on top of it, along with the erection of usurping, schismatic and heretical Latin patriarchates on top of the Orthodox patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and Cyprus, to refashion them into the Vatican vision. Not much to view highly.

I think he is wrong to believe, as of course de Halleux proposed, that Chalcedon was a Cyrilline council.

Of course it wasn't a Cyrillian Council. Neither was Pope St. Cyril. He was Orthodox, as was it, as was Nicea I, Constantinople I, and Ephesus (I). The Ecumenical Council of Ephesus wasn't Cyrillian, anymore than Constantinople I was Gregorian, or Nicea I was Athanasian. The theology defended at Nicea I, Constantinople I and Ephesus was defended by Pope St. Athanasius, EP Gregory Nazianzus and Pope St. Cyril but it wasn't there own creation: it was, is, the Faith delivered once and for all to the saints, against which Arius, Macedonus and Nestorius promoted their own theology created by themselves or with others. Hence "Arian," "Macedonian" and "Nestorian." We are not Leonines, and you are not Dioscorians.

as he had invited Nestorius to attend and be reconciled to the Church.

Do we have some documentation to that effect, Father? Going to the Acts of Chalcedon, I see no hint of any such thing. Instead, in the Council's acclamations of the Emperor and Empress, it is is explicitely said that "Pulcheria the New Helen...it is you who drove out Nestorius," which is true. Pope St. Leo wrote to the Emperor Marcian to call the Council saying, among other things "From the integrity of the Faith, veered...with...equal impiety Nestorius....utterly abomidable in [his] convictions, which in opposition to the pure light [he] drew from the polluted lakes of diabaolical falsity. Therefore, the earlier [i.e. Ecumenical Council/] Synod of Ephesus deservedly and justly condemned Nestorius, together with his doctrine:whoever persists in that error can have no hope of any remedy."http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=PA100&dq=%22polluted+lakes+of+diabolical+falsity%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22polluted%20lakes%20of%20diabolical%20falsity%22&f=false

I am quite sure that Ibas did not view it as a Cyrilline council, nor Theodoret.

since it forced both of them to explicitely anathematize Nestorius, being told explicitely by the Fathers "Say 'anathema to Nestorius and all who hold his views'....Say publically 'anathema to Nestorius and his teachings, anathema to Nestorius and his friends" (when Theodoret hestitated "the most devout bishops exclaimed 'He is a heretic. He is a Nestorian. Drive out the heretic," until Theodoret said "anathema to Nestorius and to whoever does not say that the Holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos") neither could, unless they were in deep denial or engaged in enough casuitry to put scholastic Jesuitry to shame, they view it as a Nestorian Council, crypto or blatant.

Given the unaminous reference to Pope St. Cyril by both sides of the Council, the frequent reference to "Cyril, now among the saints," including the first session (the only one that Pope Dioscoros attended) ending with "recognizing that the beliefs of our most divine and most pius master [Marcian] agree with....the two canonical letters of Cyril which were approved and published at the first Council of Ephesus, and does not depart from their Faith in any way," to EP Antatolius, Pope Disocoros' own representative to Constantinople and candidate for the throne of St. John Chrysostom, beginnig the approval of the Tome of Pope St. Leo by stating "the letter of the most sacred and God-beloved archbishop of Leo accords with....the proceedings of the Ecumenical and Holy Council of Ephesus umnder the blessed Cyril [now] among the saints, when it deposed the infamous Nestorius," Chalcedon was more "Cyrillian" than either Council of Ephesus.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

When you say Yeshua, do you mean God the Word incarnate? or someone else?

Mar-Yehoshuah ben Yosef, who was given a symbolic sonship from YHWH at his baptism by Mar-Yohannah the scrubbing bubbler.

It's bad enough NicholasMyra that you say Jesus, which is NOT the name of God incarnate & flesh on Earth ANY credible historian will tell you that his name in his native tongue was either pronounced - 1) Yeshua2) Yehushua

pronounced /je'ʃuʕ/. If you can't pronounce the /ʕ/, drop the pretensions.

When the Greeks asked to see Jesus (Jn. 12:20), they said "Iesus," His name.

In any case, your "point," rather nit-picking on the pronunciation in His native tongue is irrelevant.

the son of the trinity, and denying the divinity by calling YHWH's incarnation "symbolic". I for one see that as very blasphemous.

You can hate me all you want, but your blasphemy stands as your own testimony.

I for one see that Nicholas was telling you "physician, heal thyself."

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

You are actually making fun of the name of Yeshua, the baptism of our God (I think it's your God) the son of the trinity, and denying the divinity by calling YHWH's incarnation "symbolic". I for one see that as very blasphemous.

You can hate me all you want, but your blasphemy stands as your own testimony.

It's a satire of the logical conclusion of your current stance, YIM.

I use the name Yeshua myself. But soon enough Yeshua will probably not be good enough for the Judaizers. Some of the Messianic Jews have already begun adding more syllables.

do they add that to make up for what they take off in circumcision?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

JLatimer, I think we know that Father John Romanides had a low view of the Frankish Church.

I never quite followed his train of thought.

I think he is wrong to believe, as of course de Halleux proposed, that Chalcedon was a Cyrilline council. My view at present is that it was several different things all going on at the same time, with different actors and different agendas. But I do not believe that it was meant by the Emperor, as a major player, to be a Cyrilline council as he had invited Nestorius to attend and be reconciled to the Church. I am quite sure that Ibas did not view it as a Cyrilline council, nor Theodoret.

I think that Rome accepted Chalcedon for reasons that seemed good and consistent, just as the anti-Chalcedonians rejected it for different reasons which seemed good and consistent.

Father Peter

Indeed, Chalcedon is a complicated mesh, isn't it?

Not any more than Nicea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus (the Ecumenical Council, and the second council there)...in fact practically any council, Ecumenical, local, schismatic or heretical. Very few are cut and dry (and they usually are schismatic and heretical ones)

another says Roman papalism; and yet another says this is a semi-Nestorian council. In reality, all three were present within the council, seemed to allow all to at least exist in a compromising manner,

which makes it that much easier to put their own interpretations to it as vague as all these interpretations together make the council out to be.

Given the explicite and precise condemnation of Nestorius throughout the Council, he would have felt most unwelcome. Nothing vague about that. Have you read the Acts?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.

yeah, that is ambiguous as to what Christology is being attributed to Pope St. Cyril. Not.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.

yeah, that is ambiguous as to what Christology is being attributed to Pope St. Cyril. Not.

Yes, it was ambiguous. Even as they were condemning Nestorius, they were accepting Ibas' letter as Orthodox. Ibas' letter, as you know, praised Theodore of Mopsuestia as a doctor of the Church and said that St. Cyril eventually changed his Christology to that of Theodore.

In other threads, you have characterized the acceptance of Ibas' letter as a peripheral matter that was not central to the council. However, not everyone viewed it that way. A century later, Justinian had a horrible time trying to get his Chalcedonian bishops to condemn Ibas' letter. They would not condemn it willingly because they thought doing so would undermine Chalcedon. Also, there were Chalcedonian bishops who would not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, not only because he was already dead, but because Ibas' letter praised him and they thought the letter was that authoritative.

I don't want to start a polemical debate about this in the public forum. I am just bringing all this up because I think there is a strong argument to be made that Chalcedon was ambiguous. The fact that it has been given so many interpretations by so many people over the centuries is evidence of that. The Assyrians, for example, state in their catechism that Chalcedon upholds their Christology. Of course the EO's would vehemently disagree with that. Everyone sees it their own way.

The important thing, of course, is that Constantiple II eliminated any ambiguity, and the Chalcedonian Churches now hold a Christology that the OO's can agree with and call Orthodox.

Going back to the OP, I recall a German Protestant theologian coming on our website a while back. He wrote something that seemed to support the idea that there are those in the West who view Chalcedon as quasi-Nestorian. I don't know if that would reflect the feelings of our Catholic members here. Probably not.

I personally do not support any reunion. I will not accept Leo's Tome nor Leo I, who supported Theodoret a heretic thereby making Leo a heretic. I think they should admit that in the 4th council they rejected our definition, which is clearly the definition of St. Cyril in the 3rd council, and that they were wrong in doing so. They should accept St. Dioscorus as a saint and denounce Leo I as a heretic, who also started the papal primacy which is probably why he sought to oust the church in Alexandria.

this is more of what Fr. Romanides is talkng about. Chalcedon wasn't about Ultramontanism (or, for that matter, Nestorianism).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

How do you know they didn't compare the Tome of Leo to the Ibasian concept of St. Cyril, especially since that letter too was proclaimed as Orthodox by pretty much the main players of the council? Certainly this type of ambiguity did not exist in Nicea, Constantinople, or Ephesus.

And if you notice in the minutes, Rome still had considerable power. The fact that the Roman legates were threatening to leave because of the use of "of two natures" in the original Chalcedonian definition, leading to bent arms to affirm instead the "in two natures" still shows the open possibility that the Tome of Leo was an upheld primary document for the council, and that Rome still was respected.

« Last Edit: September 29, 2011, 11:55:06 PM by minasoliman »

Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.

In terms of my response to Fr. Peter, this is largely irrelevant. We all know that OO's don't agree that Chalcedon was legitimately Cyrillian. My point was that in arguing that Chalcedon was 'Cyrillian', Fr. Romanides is not depending on some modern reinterpretation but is rather expressing the general EO understanding which runs back to the Council of Chalcedon itself.

As a statement in its own right, the problem with it, is that in their synodical definition, the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't say 'the Christology of the Blessed Cyril as expressed in the Formula of Reunion' much less 'the Christology of St. Cyril after he repented'. They affirmed Ephesus itself, placing it in the same category as the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils and then specifically acknowledge St. Cyril's synodical letters to Nestorius (i.e., the writings you are saying some people thought he had repented of) as doctrinal authorities.

You can argue that the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't understand St. Cyril's theology (and therefore didn't understand what they were affirming)--but you can't argue that they affirmed anything less than the fulllest and most aggressive statements of that theology St. Cyril ever made.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

It seems perhaps for the good sake of EO's that Nestorius never made it to the council, which makes it that much easier to put their own interpretations to it as vague as all these interpretations together make the council out to be.

As an EO I certainly wouldn't object to the possibility that Divine Providence played a role in who did and did not show up at Chalcedon. But this post raises a question for me: What if Nestorius had shown up at Chalcedon.? And having done so, what if he had been reconciled to the Church by subscribing to the full definition of the Council as it actually exists--that is, acknowledging the authority and judgment of Ephesus and accepting St. Cyril's writings against him as authoritative statements of Orthodox doctrine (with the recanting of his heresy that would have entailed). Wouldn't that have been a good thing?

I take it that you are implying that had Nestorius shown up all those Fathers who in actual historical fact reaffirmed his condemnation at Ephesus, declared the 12 anathemas to be authoritative Orthodox teaching, adopted language I'm told originally came from Patriarch Dioscorus, etc, would have changed their minds/shown their true colors and done something even more objectionable to OO's than what they actually did--but I can't see the reasonable path by which you get to this assumption.

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great

witega, the 12 anathemas were not accepted at Chalcedon as far as I and many scholars can see.

I think that had Nestorius turned up at the council then there would have been a settlement made on a more explicitly semi-Nestorian position, which is what the emperor wanted as far as I can see.

Chalcedon was a carefully managed event. Constantinople II even more so (at that council the fathers just adopted what the emperor had said with no discussion). But even at Chalcedon there was no discussion of theology allowed.

It was well known, for instance, that Ibas disagreed with Nestorius, and so it was easy for him to anathematise him, but he was not asked to repudiate Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was his Teacher. Likewise with Theodoret. Many of them thought Nestorius was foolish and could be sacrificed. The fact that they anathematised him does not mean anything at all in relation to what they believed because none were questioned on their faith or asked to repudiate the source of their error (which was never Nestorius).

But I think the main issue, for my POV, is that it is indeed fair to Chalcedon to say that it was a variety of different councils going on at once. But it was always going to have the outcome the emperor wanted. Both Marcian and Pulcheria had visited Dioscorus before the council offering inducements to accept their position. Likewise the Roman legates had a fixed agenda. Juvenal was determined to get what he could for himself out of the council and broke a solemn oath. And there were plenty of bishops who probably weren't sure what was going on or what to do or say.

But as I said, I don't believe, and nor do most modern scholars I have read, that the 12 anathemas were accepted at Chalcedon.

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.

In terms of my response to Fr. Peter, this is largely irrelevant. We all know that OO's don't agree that Chalcedon was legitimately Cyrillian. My point was that in arguing that Chalcedon was 'Cyrillian', Fr. Romanides is not depending on some modern reinterpretation but is rather expressing the general EO understanding which runs back to the Council of Chalcedon itself.

As a statement in its own right, the problem with it, is that in their synodical definition, the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't say 'the Christology of the Blessed Cyril as expressed in the Formula of Reunion' much less 'the Christology of St. Cyril after he repented'. They affirmed Ephesus itself, placing it in the same category as the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils and then specifically acknowledge St. Cyril's synodical letters to Nestorius (i.e., the writings you are saying some people thought he had repented of) as doctrinal authorities.

You can argue that the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't understand St. Cyril's theology (and therefore didn't understand what they were affirming)--but you can't argue that they affirmed anything less than the fulllest and most aggressive statements of that theology St. Cyril ever made.

Witega,

Do you really want to go there? Do you really think this is going to work? I think you belong to the private forum. Take another look down there and see where these arguments always end up. Aside from the fact that polemical arguments about Chalcedon are forbidden in the public forum (not just in the OO section,) you should know that this will go nowhere and no one will be convinced of the other's position.

Maybe we need to get back to the OP and try to more thoroughly explore the RC position on Chalcedon and why they really accepted it.

Lol! I didn't quite get that impression. But it did come over like I used to speak when I was a non-denominational evangelical - I am just a Christian.

That is fine unless what a person is asking requires greater definition.

There is a Christology of Leo which is not expressed in the same way as that of St Cyril, but there is also a Christology of Severus, or of Proclus, or of St John Chrysostom etc etc.

To say that there is only Orthodoxy is to deny that it is possible to either have some degree of variation within the bounds of Orthodoxy which can describe the Christology of a particular Father, or that a particular Father can make his own contribution to Orthodoxy.

To say that something is Cyrilline has a particular, real and substantial meaning. ISTM that denying such usage is not only unreasonable but seems to be unwittingly and unnecessarily discussion-stifling.

Whenever someone makes a reference to Orthodox Christology as "Cyrillian," he says it is not Cyrillian, but Orthodox. I hope I'm not misrepresenting him. I think I know what he is getting at, but I'm not sure.

To say that there is only Orthodoxy is to deny that it is possible to either have some degree of variation within the bounds of Orthodoxy

That's basically what Isa meant.

That there is no Sola Cyril when it comes to Christology.

True, but "Cyrillian" gives precision in a discussion where "Orthodox" may have different meaning depending on who is using it. I seem to recall reading an Assyrian source that approvingly described Chalcedon as "Orthodox." I don't think, however, that they mean the same thing as the EO's when they call it that. It's situations like that when "Cyrillian" comes in handy.

You mean that you think Isa does deny that there is an allowable degree of variation within the bounds of Orthodox Christology such that it is possible to speak of a Cyrilline Christology?

There is certainly not a Sola Cyril in Christology, but he is pretty much the foundation of Orthodox Christology since his time. Severus expands his Christology and is perhaps his equal, together with St Athanasius they are considered the three Fathers of Orthodox Christology.

If a person doesn't base their Christology pretty much on St Cyril then I am not sure they can be considered Orthodox? Really, I don't see how that would be possible.

A council surely cannot act and speak against the revelation of Truth through the teaching faculty of the Church? If, as I believe, St Cyril was correct and accurate in his Christology then a council will be consistent with this teaching? His Christology had, after all, already been accepted at Ephesus I and Ephesus 449.

If not St Cyril's Christology, then whose? (This is one of the issues with Chalcedon after all. It did seem that St Cyril's Christology was not upheld at all. This seemed important to the anti-Chalcedonian Fathers. It even seemed important to many of the Chalcedonian Fathers.) St Cyril never said Christ was 'in two natures'. Theodore and Nestorius did. Does that matter? The first draft of the Definitio included the phrase 'of two natures', which could have been accepted. Why was it sent back by the Roman legates so that it was changed to 'in two natures', which could not be accepted? Which Christologies were at play? Which ones dominated?

I have to say that an ambiguous response to St Cyril (and I have had EOs say to me, he is only one man, his views don't count), seems to me not to be consonant with the position of the Church in the past. I don't mean that critically of you or anyone, but I do find it very odd and not a traditional viewpoint at all.

Lol! I didn't quite get that impression. But it did come over like I used to speak when I was a non-denominational evangelical - I am just a Christian.

That's so funny. Evangelicals here in the US do the same thing: "I'm not Orthodox or Protestant, I'm a just plain Christian." Or, "I used to be Orthodox, but now I'm Christian."

Of course, just because a person calls himself "Christian" without any further descriptors, doesn't mean he's really Christian, just as saying a Christology is Orthodox doesn't really mean it's "just plain" Orthodox. Depending on the context, additional language helps clarify.